"N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in
messagenews:9TUPj.170803$nr1.117681@newsfe13.phx...> Dear Steve Bell:

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:9e085$48100e4c$943f641c$22494@STARBAND.NET...
...
It's a self fulfilling iteration between theory and
experiment, and as a result, there probably is
no chance something new and revolutionary will
ever be seen again.

Oh, I doubt that...

I went to the first link, but it said the page was not
found. I went to the second link, and it was about a
drunk Russian.

This does bring up an interesting topic for discussion.
Do you believe that something will either incorporate
QM as a special case, as for example, GR incorporated
Newtonian mechanics as a special case, or out right
replace QM?

I suppose someone could argue that all of what is
called QM (QED, QFT, QCD, etc.) has been incorporated
underneath superstring theory, but to me, since it is
based on the postulates that Dirac originally
formulated, string theory is really just another
"topic" underneath QM.

For the string theorists to say "this is the
final theory of everything" is very reminiscent of
the Newtonian physicists who thought basically the
exact same thing before the relativity revolution,
and we know how that turned out.

I wonder if there really ever can be an "end of
physics".

If there is indeed this self fulfilling iteration
between theory and experiment now in QM, I would
have to believe it may be impossible for anything
to overcome such a bias.

If the actual experimental data is heavily biased
by theory, there likely is no chance that theory
will ever disagree with experimentation, and the
advance of science comes to a dead halt.

Do you think that string theory uses the same
statistical interpretation as laid down by Max
Born? That is, that the complex conjugate of a
solution of the Schroedinger equation, times
itself, yields a real value that is
proportional to a probability?

It seems to me it does. For that reason, it's
hard to see how string theory can overcome how
QM describes a statistical universe, since if
what I said is true, string theory itself is
just as "statistical" as QM.

This brings up another interesting question. Is
the external world really statistical,

or is it really deterministic?

As you probably know, there is a rapidly
advancing branch of science called Chaos
Theory. Contrary to the implications of its
name, the external world is viewed as
deterministic, but extremely complicated. One
of its tenets, I think, is that the phenomenal
deterministic complexity of a "nonlinear
deterministic system" causes it only to look
stochastic, but it really isn't. Perhaps
that's what's really going on, even in an atom.

An electron really is a particle,

coasting along on a very complicated
deterministic orbit. It just looks stochastic
to us, but in fact it is not.

But because the motion is so complicated, the only
thing we can do is describe it statistically.

There is also being developed an attempt at a
merger with QM, which if I am not wrong, is
called Quantum Chaos. But to me, there would
have to be a fundamental break with the
underlying tenet of QM that the external world
is truthfully stochastic for this to succeed.

With regards to these discussions here, perhaps
the following is true. Today, the CODATA folks
produce a "consistent set of fundamental
constants." I think I see what they mean by
that. The final values they present are
consistent with the current accepted theories
of modern physics, relativity, QM, etc.

As it looks to me, no longer are the data used
(e.g., the actual spectroscopic data) in an
unbiased manner.

It may be that around about the time these
consistent sets were started to be generated,
that's when these unbiased, truthfully
experimentally derived Rydberg constants for
hydrogen were no longer being generated, and
that's the reason why I can't find one today.

With regards to these discussions here, perhaps the following is true.
Today, the CODATA folks produce a "consistent set of fundamental
constants."
I think I see what they mean by that. The final values they present are
consistent with the current accepted theories of modern physics,
relativity,
QM, etc. As it looks to me, no longer are the data used (e.g., the actual
spectroscopic data) in an unbiased manner. Of course, if you accept the
validity of these theories, this biasing is a positive thing, not a
negative
thing. I think perhaps, the observed values of the Rydberg constant for
hydrogen that I have quoted here were experimentally derived prior to the
enforcing of this bias, and in fact are only based on the raw, unbiased
spectroscopic data. If so, I am even more convinced that something is
amiss,
because that's exactly the type of Rydberg constant for hydrogen that I
like
to use, and that I think should be used, one one that only nature itself
has
dictated its value, uncorrupted by any theory, including mine. It may be
that around about the time these consistent sets were started to be
generated, that's when these unbiased, truthfully experimentally derived
Rydberg constants for hydrogen were no longer being generated, and that's
the reason why I can't find one today.

Steve

Do you think that string theory uses the same
statistical interpretation as laid down by Max
Born? That is, that the complex conjugate of a
solution of the Schroedinger equation, times
itself, yields a real value that is
proportional to a probability?

Except that it can now have directional properties.

It seems to me it does. For that reason, it's
hard to see how string theory can overcome how
QM describes a statistical universe, since if
what I said is true, string theory itself is
just as "statistical" as QM.

Except that it is now different. And keep in mind that GR itself is
very much "statistical", since it only applies for large collections
of quantum objects, and those distributed.

This brings up another interesting question. Is
the external world really statistical,

As we perceive it, yes.

or is it really deterministic?

All of Science assumes deterministic in everything, the statistical
bit simply applies determinism in a more slippery way.

As you probably know, there is a rapidly
advancing branch of science called Chaos
Theory. Contrary to the implications of its
name, the external world is viewed as
deterministic, but extremely complicated. One
of its tenets, I think, is that the phenomenal
deterministic complexity of a "nonlinear
deterministic system" causes it only to look
stochastic, but it really isn't. Perhaps
that's what's really going on, even in an atom.

Probably not. "Really going on" makes assumptions we cannot make.

An electron really is a particle,

No, it is not an abstract word made up with large macroscopic system
bias.

coasting along on a very complicated
deterministic orbit. It just looks stochastic
to us, but in fact it is not.

What you are straining at is how the system of nucleus + electron
"attaches" to the Universe at large. You should not spend effort
trying to infer what the electron "really" is in this context.

But because the motion is so complicated, the only
thing we can do is describe it statistically.

No, "motion", "complexity" are your attempt to make the electron a
billiard ball, its orbital some sort of path around the nucleus, and
the nucleus a billiard ball whose electrical field is incidentally
*completely neutralized at all scales* by this orbitting electron and
does it without producing a magnetic field.

There is also being developed an attempt at a
merger with QM, which if I am not wrong, is
called Quantum Chaos. But to me, there would
have to be a fundamental break with the
underlying tenet of QM that the external world
is truthfully stochastic for this to succeed.

I don't worry about what "props" are doing.

With regards to these discussions here, perhaps
the following is true. Today, the CODATA folks
produce a "consistent set of fundamental
constants." I think I see what they mean by
that. The final values they present are
consistent with the current accepted theories
of modern physics, relativity, QM, etc.

I would say that is right. The values themselves derive from
application of theory, and are (sometimes) far removed from actual
measurement.

As it looks to me, no longer are the data used
(e.g., the actual spectroscopic data) in an
unbiased manner.

Load the terms politically / emotionally if you like. But a common
language is in use. Add new "words" if you need to, but don't
complain about the (current) meanings.

It may be that around about the time these
consistent sets were started to be generated,
that's when these unbiased, truthfully
experimentally derived Rydberg constants for
hydrogen were no longer being generated, and
that's the reason why I can't find one today.

I don't know what version of Reality you think you are in, but the
rest of us depend on "the shoudlers of giants" to get our jobs done.
"Truth" is obtainable in the courtroom, or in philosophy. The rest of
us depend on measurement and reported results. You do realize that
the CODATA values were obtained by experiment, and the methods used in
data reduction are published. You can "back into" statistical
measures of actual data without too much difficulty.

You are obsessed with inanities. You have a sharp mind. Why do you
work on dirt with it? Bored?

David A. Smith

I personally believe like Einstein, that there is in fact "an external
world, independent of the perceiving subject." If the external world is
"this" and we think it's "that" this doesn't at all change the fact that
it's really "that."

"dlzc" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3dff412a-dfd3-4e75-b999-9a001e92fcd7@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Dear Steve Bell:

On Apr 24, 9:35 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
...
Do you think that string theory uses the same
statistical interpretation as laid down by Max
Born? That is, that the complex conjugate of a
solution of the Schroedinger equation, times
itself, yields a real value that is
proportional to a probability?

Except that it can now have directional properties.

I don't know what that means, but that's my
fault. I'll have to study up more on this.

It seems to me it does. For that reason, it's
hard to see how string theory can overcome how
QM describes a statistical universe, since if
what I said is true, string theory itself is
just as "statistical" as QM.

Except that it is now different. And keep in mind
that GR itself is very much "statistical", since it
only applies for large collections of quantum
objects, and those distributed.

Personally, I don't view GR as statistical in any
way. To me, it is a completely deterministic theory.

This brings up another interesting question. Is
the external world really statistical,

As we perceive it, yes.

I would suppose then, you disagree with Chaos
Theory.

or is it really deterministic?

All of Science assumes deterministic in
everything, the statistical bit simply applies
determinism in a more slippery way.

To me, the external world is either stochastic (I
usually use "stochastic" and "statistical"
interchangeably) or deterministic. I don't think it
can be both. It has to be, to me, one or the other.

As you probably know, there is a rapidly
advancing branch of science called Chaos
Theory. Contrary to the implications of its
name, the external world is viewed as
deterministic, but extremely complicated. One
of its tenets, I think, is that the phenomenal
deterministic complexity of a "nonlinear
deterministic system" causes it only to look
stochastic, but it really isn't. Perhaps
that's what's really going on, even in an atom.

Probably not. "Really going on" makes
assumptions we cannot make.

I personally believe like Einstein, that there is
in fact "an external world, independent of the
perceiving subject." If the external world is
"this" and we think it's "that" this doesn't at
all change the fact that it's really "this."
What we think the external world "is" doesn't
at all change what it really "is." Of course,
when the external world is "this" and we think
it's the same "this", then we should celebrate.
Unfortunately, it usually is difficult to realize
that we've gotten it correct. In fact, we actually
really never know with 100% certainty that
we've gotten it right.

An electron really is a particle,

No, it is not an abstract word made up with large
macroscopic system bias.

I'm sure you can see from my previous comments,
that I think an electron truthfully physically exists.
I don't believe it is just an abstract concept.

coasting along on a very complicated
deterministic orbit. It just looks stochastic
to us, but in fact it is not.

What you are straining at is how the system
of nucleus + electron "attaches" to the Universe
at large. You should not spend effort trying to
infer what the electron "really" is in this context.

If by "attaches to the universe," you are referring
to something like Mach's Principle, that's an
interesting way to say it. I think any time spent
thinking about what an electron "really is" is
time very well spent.

But because the motion is so complicated, the only
thing we can do is describe it statistically.

No, "motion", "complexity" are your attempt to make
the electron a billiard ball, its orbital some sort of path
around the nucleus, and the nucleus a billiard ball
whose electrical field is incidentally *completely
neutralized at all scales* by this orbitting electron and
does it without producing a magnetic field.

Yes, that's basically what I believe. Also, I very
much believe that as the electron orbits about the
nucleus, it does indeed generate an orbital-based
magnetic field.

Interestingly, there is one big gigantic problem
that I've never seen addressed about viewing an
electron in an orbit. If indeed an electron orbits in
an orbit similar to a Newtonian orbit, the electron
would forever stay in a single plane. I believe we
have experimental evidence that this is not the
case. For example, the electron in ground state
hydrogen indeed "lives" in a spherical shell
around the nucleus. Believe it or not, there is an
orbit theoretical approach that can explain this.

There is also being developed an attempt at a
merger with QM, which if I am not wrong, is
called Quantum Chaos. But to me, there would
have to be a fundamental break with the
underlying tenet of QM that the external world
is truthfully stochastic for this to succeed.

I don't worry about what "props" are doing.

What's a "prop"?

With regards to these discussions here, perhaps
the following is true. Today, the CODATA folks
produce a "consistent set of fundamental
constants." I think I see what they mean by
that. The final values they present are
consistent with the current accepted theories
of modern physics, relativity, QM, etc.

I would say that is right. The values themselves
derive from application of theory, and are
(sometimes) far removed from actual measurement.

I'm glad you see this.

As it looks to me, no longer are the data used
(e.g., the actual spectroscopic data) in an
unbiased manner.

Load the terms politically / emotionally if you like.
But a common language is in use. Add new
"words" if you need to, but don't complain about
the (current) meanings.

To me, it sounds strange you would say this given
what you have said above.

It may be that around about the time these
consistent sets were started to be generated,
that's when these unbiased, truthfully
experimentally derived Rydberg constants for
hydrogen were no longer being generated, and
that's the reason why I can't find one today.

I don't know what version of Reality you think you
are in, but the rest of us depend on "the shoudlers
of giants" to get our jobs done. "Truth" is
obtainable in the courtroom, or in philosophy. The
rest of us depend on measurement and reported
results. You do realize that the CODATA values
were obtained by experiment, and the methods
used in data reduction are published. You can
"back into" statistical measures of actual data
without too much difficulty.

Whatever version of reality I think I'm in is
irrelevant to what the external world really is.

I believe that, but it doesn't stop me from trying
to figure out the true nature of an external world
that I think exists independently of me. I really
do believe there is a "truth" about the external
world, and I am convinced now more than ever,
it is not what modern physics thinks it is. And I
completely realize there are thousands of
extremely talented folks out there who would say
I am wrong. And I completely realize that right
now, it is highly unlikely I am correct.

But remember, lots of folks thought relativity was
highly likely to be incorrect before it was proven
(imo) to be correct.

Now, you may think I am an egomaniac by making
such a statement, and I would understand why. But
what if I'm right?

You are obsessed with inanities. You have a
sharp mind. Why do you work on dirt with it?
Bored?

Well thank you, sir, but I highly suspect your
complementary opinion about the sharpness of
my mind is an opinion of an extreme minority. I
have, in the past, been called a complete idiot,
even by people I really do respect scientifically
(like Bilge, etc.)

For the past several years, I've worked as a
synthetic aperture radar (SAR) scientist. When
I started to learn the theory behind SAR, I saw
that in many ways, it was very similar to QM.
There is even a paper written back in the 1940s
by a man named Gabor, who linked together the
analytic signal process theory of SAR to QM,
deriving specific versions of the uncertainty principle
(UP) applicable to SAR theory. I eventually saw the
same flaws (imo) in the union of the physics and
statistics in SAR theory that had occurred in QM.

It has a lot to do with the rather strange
interpretations of the UP that both of these fields
maintain, and that I think are incorrect This
concentrating on these ideas in the past few years
have given me hope that I may convince people I
might be correct, so I'm back trying again.

Alas, though, I present much of the same arguments
I have in the past, and the anti-response is much the
same, and you know, as someone pointed out, it is
getting rather nauseous. Another reason I post on
this is because I think I know an answer to the
"problem" that I see. But if I can't get anyone to admit
there is in fact a problem, then what's the point in
presenting a solution to a "problem" that no one thinks
really exists?

Sometimes, though, by presenting the solution to
some supposed "non problem," others see the
problem was actually there all along.

But I think I'll hold off in saying what I think is the
solution to the observed-predicted hydrogen Rydberg
constant "problem." I have a thick hide, but maybe
not so thick that I can take another barrage of bullets,
which I know would be shot at me, if not an atomic
bomb.

Probably by then, a lot of folks would think the only
way to get rid of this horrible infestation named "Bell"
would be to nuke it to death.

And even from the stinkiest of dirt, sometimes
beautiful flowers can be grown.

Dear Steve Bell:

Personally, I don't view GR as statistical in any
way. To me, it is a completely deterministic theory.

All of science is deteministic. GR only applies to populations.

This brings up another interesting question. Is
the external world really statistical,

As we perceive it, yes.

I would suppose then, you disagree with Chaos
Theory.

No, not at all. The determinism is still there.

or is it really deterministic?

All of Science assumes deterministic in
everything, the statistical bit simply applies
determinism in a more slippery way.

To me, the external world is either stochastic (I
usually use "stochastic" and "statistical"
interchangeably) or deterministic. I don't think it
can be both. It has to be, to me, one or the other.

Given a certain large number of unstable nucleii, "half" of them
will be gone in one half-life. Not saying which ones have
decayed, but the population is well behaved. It *is*
deterministic.

As you probably know, there is a rapidly
advancing branch of science called Chaos
Theory. Contrary to the implications of its
name, the external world is viewed as
deterministic, but extremely complicated. One
of its tenets, I think, is that the phenomenal
deterministic complexity of a "nonlinear
deterministic system" causes it only to look
stochastic, but it really isn't. Perhaps
that's what's really going on, even in an atom.

Probably not. "Really going on" makes
assumptions we cannot make.

[substituting your correction]
I personally believe like Einstein, that there is
in fact "an external world, independent of the
perceiving subject." If the external world is
"this" and we think it's "that" this doesn't at
all change the fact that it's really "this."
What we think the external world "is" doesn't
at all change what it really "is." Of course,
when the external world is "this" and we think
it's the same "this", then we should celebrate.
Unfortunately, it usually is difficult to realize
that we've gotten it correct. In fact, we actually
really never know with 100% certainty that
we've gotten it right.

Well, I have been toying with two mutually orthogonal time
axes... one dependent on any particular "configuration", from
which spacetime develops back to the Big Bang, and the other
subject to Will.

An electron really is a particle,

No, it is not an abstract word made up with large
macroscopic system bias.

I'm sure you can see from my previous comments,
that I think an electron truthfully physically exists.
I don't believe it is just an abstract concept.

Electrons do really exist. But they are not billiard balls, and
saying "particles" does not make them particle-like. You test
for particle, you get particle... it is your "model" that it
responds to.

coasting along on a very complicated
deterministic orbit. It just looks stochastic
to us, but in fact it is not.

What you are straining at is how the system
of nucleus + electron "attaches" to the Universe
at large. You should not spend effort trying to
infer what the electron "really" is in this context.

If by "attaches to the universe," you are referring
to something like Mach's Principle, that's an
interesting way to say it. I think any time spent
thinking about what an electron "really is" is
time very well spent.

Not when it is part of a system, and part of the system's rest
mass is "elsewhere". When you analyze a neutral atom (ground
state or not) you *must* also include the butcher's thumb on the
scale.

But because the motion is so complicated, the only
thing we can do is describe it statistically.

No, "motion", "complexity" are your attempt to make
the electron a billiard ball, its orbital some sort of path
around the nucleus, and the nucleus a billiard ball
whose electrical field is incidentally *completely
neutralized at all scales* by this orbitting electron and
does it without producing a magnetic field.

Yes, that's basically what I believe. Also, I very
much believe that as the electron orbits about the
nucleus, it does indeed generate an orbital-based
magnetic field.

But it doesn't. It cannot, for it will radiate energy, and fall
into the nucleus.

Interestingly, there is one big gigantic problem
that I've never seen addressed about viewing an
electron in an orbit. If indeed an electron orbits in
an orbit similar to a Newtonian orbit, the electron
would forever stay in a single plane. I believe we
have experimental evidence that this is not the
case. For example, the electron in ground state
hydrogen indeed "lives" in a spherical shell
around the nucleus. Believe it or not, there is an
orbit theoretical approach that can explain this.

Schroedinger. And I believe that I've seen images of actual
atomic structure using atomic force microscopes. A point
particle (the electron), as part of a system, inflates to a
"balloon".

There is also being developed an attempt at a
merger with QM, which if I am not wrong, is
called Quantum Chaos. But to me, there would
have to be a fundamental break with the
underlying tenet of QM that the external world
is truthfully stochastic for this to succeed.

I don't worry about what "props" are doing.

What's a "prop"?

The stuff we measure are props in a Play.

With regards to these discussions here, perhaps
the following is true. Today, the CODATA folks
produce a "consistent set of fundamental
constants." I think I see what they mean by
that. The final values they present are
consistent with the current accepted theories
of modern physics, relativity, QM, etc.

I would say that is right. The values themselves
derive from application of theory, and are
(sometimes) far removed from actual measurement.

I'm glad you see this.

As it looks to me, no longer are the data used
(e.g., the actual spectroscopic data) in an
unbiased manner.

Load the terms politically / emotionally if you like.
But a common language is in use. Add new
"words" if you need to, but don't complain about
the (current) meanings.

To me, it sounds strange you would say this given
what you have said above.

Wave, or particle.
Common language, or needless artifice.

The numbers are embedded in the language. They are defined by
the theory that calls them forth, and are couched in those terms.

Come up with a theory that defines the Rydberg constant a
different way, and it can be expressed in those terms.

It may be that around about the time these
consistent sets were started to be generated,
that's when these unbiased, truthfully
experimentally derived Rydberg constants for
hydrogen were no longer being generated, and
that's the reason why I can't find one today.

I don't know what version of Reality you think you
are in, but the rest of us depend on "the shoudlers
of giants" to get our jobs done. "Truth" is
obtainable in the courtroom, or in philosophy. The
rest of us depend on measurement and reported
results. You do realize that the CODATA values
were obtained by experiment, and the methods
used in data reduction are published. You can
"back into" statistical measures of actual data
without too much difficulty.

Whatever version of reality I think I'm in is
irrelevant to what the external world really is.

It really isn't anything. You keep impressing your personal
beliefs on what you want to find, and how other people must act.

I believe that, but it doesn't stop me from trying
to figure out the true nature of an external world
that I think exists independently of me. I really
do believe there is a "truth" about the external
world, and I am convinced now more than ever,
it is not what modern physics thinks it is. And I
completely realize there are thousands of
extremely talented folks out there who would say
I am wrong. And I completely realize that right
now, it is highly unlikely I am correct.

Well, so far you are entirely incorrect, wasting your effort in a
search for something you do not yet realize is not available to
mortals, and telling those responsible for CODATA that they made
a mistake.

But remember, lots of folks thought relativity was
highly likely to be incorrect before it was proven
(imo) to be correct.

"They laughed at Bozo the clown too." Carl Sagan

Now, you may think I am an egomaniac by making
such a statement, and I would understand why. But
what if I'm right?

No chance of that. Not in this particular "quest".

I was in a similar position to where you are now. I was just
sure that c was changing with time. I said many of the same
things, as I was presented with various facts, which were still
sinking in.

You are obsessed with inanities. You have a
sharp mind. Why do you work on dirt with it?
Bored?

Well thank you, sir, but I highly suspect your
complementary opinion about the sharpness of
my mind is an opinion of an extreme minority. I
have, in the past, been called a complete idiot,
even by people I really do respect scientifically
(like Bilge, etc.)

That was my handle for a while... Village Idiot.

You have intensity. You have some grasp of science. I am merely
telling you you are obsessed on the wrong thing. Once you can
step back and see that, you will be a lot happier.

For the past several years, I've worked as a
synthetic aperture radar (SAR) scientist. When
I started to learn the theory behind SAR, I saw
that in many ways, it was very similar to QM.
There is even a paper written back in the 1940s
by a man named Gabor, who linked together the
analytic signal process theory of SAR to QM,
deriving specific versions of the uncertainty principle
(UP) applicable to SAR theory. I eventually saw the
same flaws (imo) in the union of the physics and
statistics in SAR theory that had occurred in QM.

Well, it is a good sign that you are aware that this is your
opnion.

It has a lot to do with the rather strange
interpretations of the UP that both of these fields
maintain, and that I think are incorrect This
concentrating on these ideas in the past few years
have given me hope that I may convince people I
might be correct, so I'm back trying again.

Asperger's syndrome is like this too.

As I have tried to tell you more than once, all of Science is
deterministic. They simply place the determinism in different
places. And you still have some very naive expectations of the
way Nature "really" is, about what is "true", how you feel they
should be arranged / handled / expressed.

Let me give you an example. There have been more than one poster
that has come through here, that felt that we should make c =
300,000 km/sec exactly, and that Science would be well advanced,
and all would be mystically made clear by this change in units.
Its just a number. Lots of other constants derive from it, and a
step change, just feeds those with other delusions.

Now I say to you, Rydberg's constant is just a number.

Alas, though, I present much of the same arguments
I have in the past, and the anti-response is much the
same, and you know, as someone pointed out, it is
getting rather nauseous. Another reason I post on
this is because I think I know an answer to the
"problem" that I see. But if I can't get anyone to admit
there is in fact a problem, then what's the point in
presenting a solution to a "problem" that no one thinks
really exists?

The problem is not where you think it is. That is what is
gnawing at you.

Sometimes, though, by presenting the solution to
some supposed "non problem," others see the
problem was actually there all along.

You are placing your personal validation in the hands of others.
Why do you do this?

But I think I'll hold off in saying what I think is the
solution to the observed-predicted hydrogen Rydberg
constant "problem." I have a thick hide, but maybe
not so thick that I can take another barrage of bullets,
which I know would be shot at me, if not an atomic
bomb.

No bombs.

Probably by then, a lot of folks would think the only
way to get rid of this horrible infestation named "Bell"
would be to nuke it to death.

You are at least more conversant than most cranks, better read
than the average newbie. Everybody has their private obsession.
May you find some peace with yours.

And even from the stinkiest of dirt, sometimes
beautiful flowers can be grown.

In this case, the dirt is sterile.

David A. Smith

"N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:wpdQj.100629$497.11510@newsfe14.phx...

Dear Steve Bell:

Personally, I don't view GR as statistical in any
way. To me, it is a completely deterministic theory.

All of science is deteministic.  GR only applies to
populations.

I would think that many people would disagree with this.

I imagine most QM folks think their science is
fundamentally stochastic.

To me, the external world is either stochastic (I
usually use "stochastic" and "statistical"
interchangeably) or deterministic. I don't think it
can be both. It has to be, to me, one or the other.

Given a certain large number of unstable nucleii,
"half" of them will be gone in one half-life.  Not
saying which ones have decayed, but the population
is well behaved.  It *is* deterministic.

Do you believe that indeed, specific ones did decay,
and other specific ones did not?

Be careful here, because if you say "yes," to me that
means you do believe that something physically happened
in a certain way, even when you admit you don't know
which decayed and which did not. The "butcher's thumb"
was not "on the scale" when these (unknown to you)
physical events occurred.

And imo, physical events actually do occur, even if
we are or are not observing.

[substituting your correction]
I personally believe like Einstein, that there is
in fact "an external world, independent of the
perceiving subject." If the external world is
"this" and we think it's "that" this doesn't at
all change the fact that it's really "this."
What we think the external world "is" doesn't
at all change what it really "is." Of course,
when the external world is "this" and we think
it's the same "this", then we should celebrate.
Unfortunately, it usually is difficult to realize
that we've gotten it correct. In fact, we actually
really never know with 100% certainty that
we've gotten it right.

Well, I have been toying with two mutually
orthogonal time axes... one dependent on any
particular "configuration", from which spacetime
develops back to the Big Bang, and the other
subject to Will.

Sounds interesting. If I am interpreting correctly
from just this little bit of information about it,
it sounds like there's two "times" in reality, and
the single "time" we experience is a blend of the
two?

But what exactly is a "Will"? Is this our "will"
or some type of deity's "will"?

I'm not trying to be silly here, I myself am
unclear as to whether or not a god exists.

In many ways, it appears some deity does exist,
because of the apparent "design" of the
universe, but in other ways, it sure seems this
deity does not exist at all, because of all the
severe "misjustice" on our planet. If your
"Will" is our will, by capitalizing the "W", to
me you show this apparent natural human
egocentrism, which I believe is really a terrible
and negative characteristic of humans that has
evolved. But without it, we may never have
evolved to our present state in the first place.

An electron really is a particle,
...
I'm sure you can see from my previous comments,
that I think an electron truthfully physically exists.
I don't believe it is just an abstract concept.

Electrons do really exist.  But they are not billiard
balls, and saying "particles" does not make them
particle-like.  You test for particle, you get
particle... it is your "model" that it responds to.

If saying "particles" does not make them particle-like,
them I would have to demand you accept that saying they
are "waves" does not make them wave-like.

And I apologize for saying "demand" but in this
instance, you leave me no choice. With regards to
wave-particle duality, there should be an equal
partnership, and if anyone thinks that the
"particulate paradigm" has been equally treated
by QM, I would have to very strongly disagree. QM
is all wave, imo, at least that which stemmed
from Schroedinger's original work.

It fundamentally denies a physical particulate
existence, although this apparently comes from a
very strange (to me) interpretation of the
position-momentum variant of the UP. For example,
E & R in their text (2nd > ed., p. 65) state the
UP thusly: "experimentation cannot simultaneously
determine the exact component of momentum, p_x,
say, of a particle and also the exact value of
its corresponding coordinate, x." I think these
words actually demands one to accept that a
particle does have an exact position and momentum,
for if not, what exactly are these "exact component
of momentum, p_x and "exact value of its
corresponding coordinate, x" that these words
themselves refer to? To me, these words actually
state the particle did have an exact position and
an exact momentum at the same point in time, it's
just that we, using inexact and imprecise
experimental machinery, cannot concurrently
exactly quantify both.

That's no big mystery to me, because even if we
were measuring just position alone, we will never
be able to measure just position itself with
exactitude. The fact that some experimental device
must produce a diffraction pattern with a non-zero
width is a limitation of the device, that is, it
is a limitation of only having a wave (EM
radiation) to observe with, not of nature itself.

I completely agree, that by shining EM radiation
on some particle may indeed (usually does) cause
it to shoot off in some in some perhaps random
direction, but that to me does not at all say
that it did not have an exact position at the
instant it interacted with the EM radiation.

By stating things in terms of what we can or
cannot know, this to me is once again showing
our tremendous human egocentricity.

This is strange to me, because I really do think
that almost all scientists, deep down in their
gut, believe there is an "external world,
independent of the perceiving subject," as
Einstein thought. I might be wrong about that,
but I suspect I am not.

If by "attaches to the universe," you are referring
to something like Mach's Principle, that's an
interesting way to say it. I think any time spent
thinking about what an electron "really is" is
time very well spent.

Not when it is part of a system, and part of the
system's rest mass is "elsewhere".  When you analyze
a neutral atom (ground state or not) you *must* also
include the butcher's thumb on the scale.

A statement such as "*must* also include the butcher's
thumb on the scale" seems to me to stem from our
deep-rooted human ego.

Here is a "string theory paradox." What if I reject
string theory and say it is fundamentally incorrect?

Is there then some physically existing universe
where therefore, string theory is actually
incorrect?

Yes, that's basically what I believe. Also, I very
much believe that as the electron orbits about the
nucleus, it does indeed generate an orbital-based
magnetic field.

But it doesn't.  It cannot, for it will radiate
energy, and fall nto the nucleus.

I have an interpretation where that doesn't happen.
And yes, it would be called a "crackpot theory" by
one and all, I suspect.

I don't worry about what "props" are doing.

What's a "prop"?

The stuff we measure are props in a Play.

Oh, ok, I think I see what you mean. It looks
like you think "all the word's a stage" and we are
merely actors. Who said that? I think it was some
famous English poet <g>.

To me, it sounds strange you would say this given
what you have said above.

Wave, or particle.
Common language, or needless artifice.

How else can we communicate if not by words? There
is mathematics, but to me that's just another set
of squiggly lines we can write on a blackboard,
really no more "fundamental" than the other sets of
squiggly lines we call "English" or "French" or
"German," etc. Please do not infer from this that I
am saying that mathematics is meaningless, quite the
contrary, it's just in the long run, it's no more
fundamental than any representation of thought.

Whatever version of reality I think I'm in is
irrelevant to what the external world really is.

It really isn't anything.  You keep impressing
your personal beliefs on what you want to find,
and how other people must act.

Yes, everything I say is my personal belief. How
could it not be.

This is true for what anyone says.

I hope you realize the same is true of you.

I believe that, but it doesn't stop me from trying
to figure out the true nature of an external world
that I think exists independently of me. I really
do believe there is a "truth" about the external
world, and I am convinced now more than ever,
it is not what modern physics thinks it is. And I
completely realize there are thousands of
extremely talented folks out there who would say
I am wrong. And I completely realize that right
now, it is highly unlikely I am correct.

Well, so far you are entirely incorrect, wasting
your effort in a search for something you do not
yet realize is not available to mortals, and
telling those responsible for CODATA that they made
a mistake.

I do believe that recursing in what one believes an
experimental result should have turned out to be,
according to some theoretical prediction, is
indeed a serious breakdown in the scientific method.

But remember, lots of folks thought relativity was
highly likely to be incorrect before it was proven
(imo) to be correct.

"They laughed at Bozo the clown too."  Carl Sagan

Don't know exactly what you mean here, but I'll think about it.

Well thank you, sir, but I highly suspect your
complementary opinion about the sharpness of
my mind is an opinion of an extreme minority. I
have, in the past, been called a complete idiot,
even by people I really do respect scientifically
(like Bilge, etc.)

That was my handle for a while... Village Idiot.

I guess were all Village Idiots, in one way or another.

For the past several years, I've worked as a
synthetic aperture radar (SAR) scientist. When
I started to learn the theory behind SAR, I saw
that in many ways, it was very similar to QM.
There is even a paper written back in the 1940s
by a man named Gabor, who linked together the
analytic signal process theory of SAR to QM,
deriving specific versions of the uncertainty principle
(UP) applicable to SAR theory. I eventually saw the
same flaws (imo) in the union of the physics and
statistics in SAR theory that had occurred in QM.

Well, it is a good sign that you are aware that this
is your opnion.

And I hope you realize that all you say is also just
an opinion.

It has a lot to do with the rather strange
interpretations of the UP that both of these fields
maintain, and that I think are incorrect This
concentrating on these ideas in the past few years
have given me hope that I may convince people I
might be correct, so I'm back trying again.

Asperger's syndrome is like this too.

What's Asperger's syndrome?

As I have tried to tell you more than once, all
of Science is deterministic.  They simply place
the determinism in different places.  And you
still have some very naive expectations of the
way Nature "really" is, about what is "true",
how you feel they should be arranged / handled
/ expressed.

To me, what our science is or is not has nothing to
do with the true physical nature of motion. Imo, it
either is or is not deterministic or stochastic.

Let me give you an example.  There have been more
than one poster that has come through here, that
felt that we should make c = 300,000 km/sec exactly,
and that Science would be well advanced, and all
would be mystically made clear by this change in
units. Its just a number.  Lots of other constants
derive from it, and a step change, just feeds those
with other delusions.

Now I say to you, Rydberg's constant is just a number.

The speed of light either is or is not 300,000 km/sec.
I do not think it is, but imo what I think it is changes
not what it is in nature.

Sometimes, though, by presenting the solution to
some supposed "non problem," others see the
problem was actually there all along.

You are placing your personal validation in the
hands of others. Why do you do this?

Probably, for the same reasons why you do it.

Without agreement from others, one is always left
with the nagging feeling one is wrong.

You are at least more conversant than most cranks,
better read than the average newbie.  Everybody has
their private obsession. May you find some peace
with yours.

I can tell I will never convince you. So be it.

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:wpdQj.100629$497.11510@newsfe14.phx...

You are at least more conversant than most cranks, better read
than the average newbie. Everybody has their private obsession.
May you find some peace with yours.

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message news:49349$4810b699
With regards to these discussions here, perhaps the following is true.
Today, the CODATA folks produce a "consistent set of fundamental
constants."
I think I see what they mean by that. The final values they present are
consistent with the current accepted theories of modern physics,
relativity,
QM, etc. As it looks to me, no longer are the data used (e.g., the
actual
spectroscopic data) in an unbiased manner. Of course, if you accept the
validity of these theories, this biasing is a positive thing, not a
negative
thing. I think perhaps, the observed values of the Rydberg constant for
hydrogen that I have quoted here were experimentally derived prior to
the
enforcing of this bias, and in fact are only based on the raw, unbiased
spectroscopic data. If so, I am even more convinced that something is
amiss,
because that's exactly the type of Rydberg constant for hydrogen that I
like
to use, and that I think should be used, one one that only nature itself
has
dictated its value, uncorrupted by any theory, including mine. It may be
that around about the time these consistent sets were started to be
generated, that's when these unbiased, truthfully experimentally derived
Rydberg constants for hydrogen were no longer being generated, and
that's
the reason why I can't find one today.

Steve



I looked back in past posts I made on this topic, and I've found the
19050's
reference to the observed value of R_H:

... the value (109677.575 +/- 0.012) cm^-1, reported by
E. R. Cohen, Phys. Rev. 88, (2), 353, (1952; received March 1951)

The value presented in Eisberg and Resnick's (E & R) text I've quoted
before is 10967757.6 +/- 1.2 m^-1, basically exactly the same. I wonder if
Eisberg and Resnick just used this number. They do not present a reference
for their value, which I have always found to be strange. But if they did,
this brings up an interesting "fact." The value E & R quote for the
prediction to compare to this observed value was computed using Schroe.
non-relativistic QM, and they state: "using the currently accepted values
of
the quantities m, M, e, c, and h, we find R_H = 10968100 m^-1." I suspect
the reason why this prediction is so "off" is because back in the 1970s
(the
time I think this prediction was made) the values of m, M, e, c, and h
were
probably significantly "off" from what we think they are today. Today, if
we
insert our current values into Schroe. theory, we get R_H = 10967758.341
m^-1, as per the Wikipedia site. This value is real close to even the
1950s
observed value. If the values of the constants back in the 1970s were bad
enough to give a significantly "bad" prediction, then they must have been
even worse in the 1950s. But look at what occurred. If I assume the 50s
folks were in fact "pulling a fast one" (I don't) and actually computed a
value using Schroe. theory and presented it as an "observed," it would be
as
if the folks back in the 50s knew what were going to be our current modern
values of these constants. Of course, that's absurd. It makes much better
sense to think this value is truthfully an unbiased observational value,
unbiased by any theory, and has remained basically constant for many
decades. I suspect that if an observational R_H value were derived today
based solely on the unbiased spectroscopic data, a value real close to
these
older observational values would be obtained. It appears the CODATA folks
put a stop to that once these consistent sets started to be produced. To
me,
this is most unfortunate. It sure appears to me now, that if anyone is
"pulling a fast one" it's CODATA, by the Bayesian-like estimation process
they use.

I'm beginning to get the feeling, that if the modern physics community is
willing to accept such poor science as good science, there will be no way
such people could be convinced of the error of their ways.

Steve